(Yes I wrote this already in the Ideas and Suggestions thread, but I'm not sure if that was the right place to put it in as it is not really a new idea. If you read this one before over there, I'm sorry, you can just ignore it)

I must say how incredibly disappointing it is for me to find out that there will be no atheist or even separation of church and state option in Civ 4. The closest we're going to come to that is "Free Religion" which is not the same thing. Will there no way for the government to have an anti-religious or even non-religious posture?

I am truly, deeply disappointed by this. I may wait for an XP to come out before I lose my 50 bucks.

I think that CIV is more of a reflection of the way the world works - its very hard to find a single state in the world where religion doesn't have some sort of influence. From what I have read, the religion allows things like shared line-of-site to cities with that religion, as well as commerce.

Essentially, it doesn't really affect the way in which you HAVE to manage your empire, but gives you some mild bonuses or handicaps should you choose to manage it in a certain way.

I think this is probably a fair reflection on how the real world works - and actually has the religion and state separated more than in most countries anyway.

Influence among the people and the official stance the government takes are two different things - There have been plenty of examples of atheistic states, secular states, and states where the separation of church and state is a cherished instituation. Plenty of instances throughout history where states have taken an anti-religious campaign or stance either against 1 particular religion or all relgions taken together. I think this historical reality should be included in the game and I am disappointed to find out otherwise.

I am not asking for religion to have absolutely no influence in a atheist or secular civ, I am just asking for it to be there as an option, perhaps even in just the modern era where sep of church and state and atheism are important tenets in many modern democracies and communist governments.

And this is an argument that I use every time "historical precedence" or "realism" is invoked:

Civ is a historical what-if game, so whatever happens to be the case in the real world does not have to be reflected in the Civ world. The perennial examples are that the Americans did not exist in 4000 BC and that units do not take centuries to move a couple hundred miles (or however you interpret the distance represented by several tiles).

For the sake of gameplay, an option to separate church and state or remain free of religion (since religion is researched, apparently the default state is no religion) would be nice.

Actually, from what I understand, your nation starts out with a form of Generic 'Primitive' religion at the very start, but can later adopt one of the 7 major religions as your State religion. Also, I am under the impression that under the Religion Civic, players can choose to become either Secular or Theocratic in regards to their 'State' Religion.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

I'm fairly certain that modding in "Atheism" as a new religion will take but a few clicks in the Map Editor. Though having an atheistic "Holy City" would seem a bit odd ("Well, I'm off on my lifetime pilgrimage!" "But you don't believe in God!" "I know. It's an atheist pilgrimage. We walk about the countryside, seeing places that have no religious significance at all, and conclude by visiting the sacreligious hill where it is said a famous atheist did not ascend to heaven. There are even people who claim that they have visited these sites with incurable diseases and that, upon standing on the hill, their ailments were not cured!").

We have the follow Religion civics options:

Primitivism
Pacifism
Freedom of Religion
Organized Religion
Theocracy

This leaves no place for modern anti-religious states such as the Soviet Union. We can have a bureaucratic, communist, slave and police state, but it's religion is "Primitivism"?

I'm not seeing much of a difference between the last two religious options, so I don't see why fitting in anti-religious would have been difficult. Maybe because coming up with realistic benefits would be difficult?

Lose the effectiveness of all religous buildings but gain a science bonus and immunity from missionaries? That seems somewhat plausible, but potentially too game breaking considering the significance of religion in this game.

If I was reading things right, you don't have any choice as to what your people believe in, just what the official policy on religion is. Would official atheism make all of the peeps with a religious preference unhappy?

My impression is that this issue about state-church is going to be like the goverments in Civ III. It took me a while to switch from democracy to communism in my civ games until I realize how powerful communism is in the game when you have a big empire. Which is odd to me, since history and experience proves that democracy is a better goverment than communism. (Yeah, I know, true communism never existed and blah, blah, blah, frankly, too many people had been killed to try a "true communism" so, don't try it any more, please).

With religion/state I think is gonna be the same. Historically, (unless the way I see history, which could be biased ;) ) the separation between state and church ocurred in Europe during the middle ages, and triggered the social, political and scientifical development of Europe. Compared to the muslim states, where state and church are joint together (the king of Morocco is believed to be a Mahoma ancestor), the european countries separated church and state, and thus leaded to the social and scientifical development of Europe when compared to the muslim countries, which remained backwards. I am afraid that is not going to be reflected in Civ IV, but, never mind, I still think it is just a game, and at some point you have to draw the line that separates historical accuracy and fun.

I think Freedom of Religion is going to be the closest to Separation of Church and State. This is not the Atheistic State that some people apparently think Separation of Church and State means. An Atheistic State is not Separation of Church and State, but rather it is a State-Controlled "religion" where your choice is that religion is disallowed.

(unless the way I see history, which could be biased ;) ) the separation between state and church ocurred in Europe during the middle ages, and triggered the social, political and scientifical development of Europe.

Very biased, and incorrect by a few hundred years. Most of Western Europe had State-Mandated religion till the 1600s and in some cases later.

(Yes I wrote this already in the Ideas and Suggestions thread, but I'm not sure if that was the right place to put it in as it is not really a new idea. If you read this one before over there, I'm sorry, you can just ignore it)

I must say how incredibly disappointing it is for me to find out that there will be no atheist or even separation of church and state option in Civ 4. The closest we're going to come to that is "Free Religion" which is not the same thing. Will there no way for the government to have an anti-religious or even non-religious posture?

I am truly, deeply disappointed by this. I may wait for an XP to come out before I lose my 50 bucks.
I think this type of thing is pretty much the reason that Civ IV is being "dumbed down" (as the "fans" here somehow know). How could a company reley on a base of people which it probably considers a major pain in the ass? Nobody shopping for games is going to have the nit picky annoying complaints that the people here do. The fans feel some connection and are all personally devastated by whatever the next version deals with their own personal view of things.

A potential new customer isnt going to see the game on the shelf and say "Hmm.. is there going to be Movement Allocation Points for the railroads?" or "This is going to suck, obviously the only tactic is going to be to stack 999999 catapults on top of each other"

It's ponderous how regulars of a web site called "fanatics" would be so negative and pessamistic.

And Firaxis is going to direct their game toward YOU?

Why do some people here insist call atheism a "religion"? Atheist people don't believe in god. There are several religions/philosophies where there isn't any god, so these religions are "atheistics".

God, in the western world definition ("the creator of all things") only exists in 3 religions: christianism, judaism and mulism. I don't know too much about other religions, but as far as I know, budhism and confucianism don't have any god.

This "atheism option" (as people call) should receive another name, because it isn't "atheism". If you want an option where you want your people without any religion, it should be called something as "non-religion state".

In ancient times, people called all other religions as "pagan". Today, people call non-religion people as "atheist".

Confucianism isn't really a religion. It's more like a codified set of values.

Very biased, and incorrect by a few hundred years. Most of Western Europe had State-Mandated religion till the 1600s and in some cases later.

The Anglican Church is still the Establicshed Church in England, and though you don't have to follow it, your taxes (I think) still go to support the Church, though my information may be wrong.

Very biased, and incorrect by a few hundred years. Most of Western Europe had State-Mandated religion till the 1600s and in some cases later.


Ok. Maybe I didn't explain it correctly. The thing is not about State-Mandated religion, it is about who is the political ruler and who is the religious ruler. Whereas in Europe the two rulers have been different for a long time, in muslim countries, as far as I know, the ruler of the country is also the ruler of the church.

Confucianism isn't really a religion. It's more like a codified set of values.


Oh, I had this debate in other thread, which it turned out to be quite difficult to keep things quiet. Confucianism (sp?) looks like a philosophy rather than a religion to me. But, I you say that in the forum, you'll gonna be accused of being western biased, which is not really an argument that probes or denies anything, but the fact is that religion seems to mean something different in eastern countries.

The line that separates philosophy from religion is not easy to define if you take into account the eastern view of religion. To me is clear, If you are talking about one or some supernatural conscious beings its a religion, if not, it is a philosophy. I don't know if you can apply that in the eastern countries.

I would like to see some way in the religion civics to repress a certain religion, as has happened many times in real life. And maybe the ability to have an atheist state like the communist states. However
anti-religious => science bonus I've heard this said a few times. What is it that makes religious people so dumb in your eyes?

@ Lockes donkey. Yes the Church of England is still the official countries religion with the Queen at the head. I'm not sure if any taxes are given to it any more, if there are i can tell u the budget is miniscule.

I've been to a Confucian temple in Taipei, Taiwan, when I studied abroad there. They celebrate the birthday of confucious like something in between independence day and christmas in the United States. While there I took a class about religions, and the teacher had us read this primary source in which jesuits back in China a long time ago whitnessed animal sacrifices at a confucian altar.

The reason people say confucianism is not a religion, is unfortunately because of a jesuit lie that caught on. Allow me to explain....
Confucianism was inseparable from Chinese back when European missionaries first started to arrive. European missionaries would just run into a brick wall whenever they'd try to tell Chinese that in order to convert to christianity they had to give up confucian practices, which by the way is where ancestor *worship* (not really worship in the western, christian sense, but close enough for arguments sake I guess) came from, as well as lots of other things. These jesuits wrote back to their superiors, and eventually some guy (can't remember the name anymore, sorry) started writing the pope for permission to allow them to continue these practices, otherwise they figured they'd never get any converts. The pope was adament about no other religious practices in addition to christianity..he said chinese had to accept christianity entirely, and there was no other way about it. He of course didn't know how pervasive confucianism was(is) in China, and was trying to label China based upon European standards of the day. So the jesuits started lying to their superiors back in Europe, misrepresenting the facts about confucianism in a deliberate attempt to make it seem more like a 'codified set of values,' and not a religion.

The teacher even told us that he'd personally read an entry from the journal of a jesuit missionary from several hundred years ago in which sentences and words about religious practices of confucianism had a line drawn through them, and official reproductions of the diary had those portions removed completely, when they were presented to important people in the christian bureaucracy back in Europe.

Due to the fact that few people have been to Asia to see this religion in action, and most of us (me included) have had History classes taught by people trained in European traditions, this misrepresentation has carried down to the present day, but is nonetheless false.

Whereas in Europe the two rulers have been different for a long time, in muslim countries, as far as I know, the ruler of the country is also the ruler of the church.

Does the term Divine Right of Kings ring a bell?

[QUOTE=Aussie_Lurker] Also, I am under the impression that under the Religion Civic, players can choose to become either Secular or Theocratic in regards to their 'State' Religion.
QUOTE]

No, there is no secular option, at least according to this site under the Civ IV preview.

If you are not Theocratic and don't have a state-mandated religion, aren't you secular by default? (I know it doesn't spell it out, but...)

Also secular does not mean atheistic, it could very well be Freedom of Religion in that the government doesn't interfere with religion at all.

Does the term Divine Right of Kings ring a bell?

Agreed; and what about temporal power of the Pope?

We have the follow Religion civics options:

Primitivism
Pacifism
Freedom of Religion
Organized Religion
Theocracy

This leaves no place for modern anti-religious states such as the Soviet Union. We can have a bureaucratic, communist, slave and police state, but it's religion is "Primitivism"?

I'm not seeing much of a difference between the last two religious options, so I don't see why fitting in anti-religious would have been difficult. Maybe because coming up with realistic benefits would be difficult?

Lose the effectiveness of all religous buildings but gain a science bonus and immunity from missionaries? That seems somewhat plausible, but potentially too game breaking considering the significance of religion in this game.


Agree. I think some people here are confusing the "official stance towards religion/s that governments take" vs. "the actual belief of the people", very often those are two very different things. Likewise, a government may be a theocracy while its people are not necessarily fundamentalist or extremely religious.

We, as Civ Leader, represent the government; not the actual beliefs of the people (which MAY or MAY NOT be the same) This is a crucial distinction. No one is calling for the entire populace to automatically become athiest or non-religious all at once but only to have that option for those governments that wish to pursue it.

Certainly this will have many effects, good and bad: Theocratic gov's wouldn't like you very much; many of your citizens might not either (depending on the historic stance the gov has taken towards religion, civilization/leader's characteristics about religion, etc) perhaps even a rebellion or civil war from the more religious members of society. The possibilities are endless and non-religious, secular and athiest options should be included into the game. It makes the game much more exciting, adds new twists and more historically accurate, particularly in the modern era.

The possibilities are endless and non-religious, secular and athiest options should be included into the game.
From all we know about the mechanics of the game, maybe it should NOT be included into the game.

From a gameplay standpoint where some religions will be converting other peoples religions (which could add interesting things like enemies fighting on one hand, but cooperating on another hand, since there are less religoins than civs) there may be no benefit to taking a stance against your people developing religions, and it just might not fit into the gameplay. If it only puts you at odds with your people, why include it? Perhaps to include them they would have to construct some meaningless benefit or bonus that wouldn't make sense.

With 8 religions, not all civs will have holy lands, but they will be busy missioning.

Can someone define these things, or think about what their effects would be? They are a bit confusing to me as far as their implications in an actual game:
Primitivism
Pacifism
Freedom of Religion
Organized Religion
Theocracy

How could a company reley on a base of people which it probably considers a major pain in the ass? Nobody shopping for games is going to have the nit picky annoying complaints that the people here do. The fans feel some connection and are all personally devastated by whatever the next version deals with their own personal view of things.

A potential new customer isnt going to see the game on the shelf and say "Hmm.. is there going to be Movement Allocation Points for the railroads?" or "This is going to suck, obviously the only tactic is going to be to stack 999999 catapults on top of each other"

It's ponderous how regulars of a web site called "fanatics" would be so negative and pessamistic.

And Firaxis is going to direct their game toward YOU?

Listen, I have bought the following Civilization games:

Civilization II
Civilization II: Fantastic Worlds
Civilization II: Gold
Civilization III
Civilization III: Conquests

While I'm sure other people have bought more, my point is that I have invested quite a lot of my own money into these games, surely more than the average gamer, and I think I have a right to add my two cents into this new version.

Make no mistake, I WILL buy Civ IV, whether I buy the first version or when an expansion comes out is what is uncertain, but I will buy the game at some point. My experience from buying Civ games (and games in general) is that they include in their expansions mostly things that SHOULD have been in there the first time. Waiting for an expansion to come out with something that is very important to me, something that I have asked to be put it for months, and something which I feel should have been included in the original version, hardly questions my loyalty to the game.

My patronage, however, should not be unlimited. Nor should it be for anyone else. We, as members of the civ community who have ALWAYS supported the civ games and their mulitiple expansions with our hard-earned dollars (making Firaxis a very nice profit I might add) have every right to expect a certain level of quality. Just "putting up or shutting up" is never a good policy; relating to video games or anything else for that matter.

Just "putting up or shutting up" is never a good policy; relating to video games or anything else for that matter.
What about Play The World??

Anyway, my first post wasnt really directed at you, you were just the last messge I read.

I don't think it is put up or shut up, but what I mean is when someone's personal thing isn't included.

There is probably someone of every religion that plays the game, for example, so unless they included every religion, all of the other people are going to complain. But for gameplay, having 8 religions may have balanced correctly.

It's just the HOW DARE they not include me messages that are irritating.

From a gameplay standpoint where some religions will be converting other peoples religions (which could add interesting things like enemies fighting on one hand, but cooperating on another hand, since there are less religoins than civs)

Great. I have no problem with religion being included into the game. It's good to hear that there will be many different strategies and tactics for dealing with it.

"there may be no benefit...[for including a non-religious and/or anti-religious option into the game]"

Then the game could easily create one. It's not that hard.

"...to taking a stance against your people developing religions, and it just might not fit into the gameplay."

Who says it would automatically put you at a stance against your people? Maybe your people aren't that religious, maybe they're apathetic and care less about it. Perhaps it will have that effect, perhaps it won't.

If it doesn't fit into YOUR style of gameplay then I guess you wouldn't use it.

"Perhaps to include them they would have to construct some meaningless benefit or bonus that wouldn't make sense. "

Then they should make it so that it would not be meaningless. Again, not very difficult. There are many "bonuses" and "scientific advances" which I do not find particularly useful but are included in the game nontheless and I'm sure considered useful by others.

" If it only puts you at odds with your people, why include it?"

If high taxation puts you at odds with your people then why include it?
If wars puts you at odds with your people then why include it?
If forced production puts you at odds with your people then why include it?
If a nuclear strike puts you at odds with your people then why include it?
If slavery puts you at odds with your people then why include it?
If theocracy puts you at odds with your people then why include it?

As civ leaders, we have many other considerations than just what puts us at odds with our people.

Great. I have no problem with religion being included into the game. It's good to hear that there will be many different strategies and tactics for dealing with it.



Then the game could easily create one. It's not that hard.



Who says it would automatically put you at a stance against your people? Maybe your people aren't that religious, maybe they're apathetic and care less about it. Perhaps it will have that effect, perhaps it won't.

If it doesn't fit into YOUR style of gameplay then I guess you wouldn't use it.



Then they should make it so that it would not be meaningless. Again, not very difficult. There are many "bonuses" and "scientific advances" which I do not find particularly useful but are included in the game nontheless and I'm sure considered useful by others.



If high taxation puts you at odds with your people then why include it?
If wars puts you at odds with your people then why include it?
If forced production puts you at odds with your people then why include it?
If a nuclear strike puts you at odds with your people then why include it?
If slavery puts you at odds with your people then why include it?
If theocracy puts you at odds with your people then why include it?

As civ leaders, we have many other considerations than just what puts us at odds with our people.The designers have said that their biggest challenge has been deciding what NOT to put in the game. Their object is not to cram as many things as possible in. Maybe your idea isn't fun.

Does the term Divine Right of Kings ring a bell?

C'mon, warpstorm, Most countries of Europe have been catholic for a long time, and the ruler of the catholic church is the Pope, whereas the ruler of each european kingdom has been the king or queen.

I would like to see some way in the religion civics to repress a certain religion, as has happened many times in real life. And maybe the ability to have an atheist state like the communist states. However

anti-religious
=>
science bonus

I've heard this said a few times. What is it that makes religious people so dumb in your eyes?
Religious people aren't dumb. The phenomena I was attempting to aim at was how the Soviet Union combined both anti-religious propaganda and general education. The Soviet Union trained huge numbers of engineers at the same time it was stamping out, well, not exactly religious sentiment, but that and peasant supersitions and myth. In contrast to the Czarist state, millions were taught how to read and received what we would consider a basic primary school education for the first time.

I find it difficult to completely divorce these phenomena. Certainly, there is a correlation between education, science and the breaking down of myths and supersition. To some (perhaps minimal) extent, that sort of forced atheism can be effective as part of a larger program. Some sort of "education" bonus then seemed appropriate, but the closest we get in Civ is science.

To be honest, this connection was a bit of a stretch as I attempted to think up plausible bonuses. I'm not entirely certain there were any clear benefits from the anti-religious state, which is why I suggested that perhaps that was they did not include the civics option.

Maybe, since strongly anti-religious stances have correlated with an increased focus on the state, this civics options would simply give you extra gold or trade (i.e. the oppressed peasantry now gives you their money instead of the church). While there are negatives to refusing to allow religious practices, I imagine the removal of such ties could help foster stronger ties to the state and make the populace generally more complacent to your capricious will. It also could remove the shared religion bonuses that neighboring nations receive.

Fine. But if u include a scientific bonus to an anti-religous government you are saying (if not intentionally) that non-religious people are more intelligent than religious. It doesn't really matter if it correlates to any real world phenomenon, I at least am going to be slightly offended.

Right on Sactown! I wouldn't want to debate you anytime soon! Very well put.


=> I've heard this said a few times. What is it that makes religious people so dumb in your eyes?


The problem isn't that the people themselves are dumb, the problem is that most of the major religious INSTITUTIONS throughout history have taken up, shall I say, unscientific, illogical and superstitious reasons to explain natural events. Creationism is one clear example; The trial of Galileo being another. Indeed, the whole notion of an all powerful spirit or Diety, certain human beings possessing supernatural powers, and the idea of miracles are all unscientific. Not trying to insult someone's religion nor am I claiming that YOU personally are unscientific and certainly not "dumb" but what I am saying is that it would be hard to look at the history of religion and the current beliefs of many religions without coming away with that much of their core beliefs and ideas come from sheer faith and superstition alone and on a strictly scientific basis, would not make sense, thus unscientfic.

The Q-Meister puts it very nicely. Whether being scientific makes beliefs/explanations "right" is certainly an entirely different matter, but it is difficult to dispute that religious positions throughout history have tended to be unscientific.

I think a term, more gratifying to those of faith, would be 'supernatural'.
Supernatural == unscientific.
One term has a positive conotation. The other: is negative.

C'mon, warpstorm, Most countries of Europe have been catholic for a long time, and the ruler of the catholic church is the Pope, whereas the ruler of each european kingdom has been the king or queen.

And many of them had to be coronated by at least an Archbishop up until fairly recently.

I think a term, more gratifying to those of faith, would be 'supernatural'.
Supernatural == unscientific.
One term has a positive conotation. The other: is negative.
I agree, this is certainly a more apt description of the negative side-effects of "religion." In today's modern society, almost no religious people adhere to the sort of superstitious beliefs that inhibit scientific progress and education, such as fears of the apocalypse, refusal of modern medicine, distrust of technology. While these unsophisticated beliefs often tied up with religion, though not necessary or usually part of our modern conception of religion, will generally go away on their own over time, a strong opposition to religion may speed their exit.

The people who I'm asserting are less-intelligent, or, to put it more precisely, less able to utilize science and "progress," are those who hold these sort of supersititions, not those who are religious in general.

Another realistic benefit could be removing issues caused by multiple nationalities or religions in your empire - i.e. you can't be oppressed specifically for your different religious beliefs if the state recognizes no religions. Of course, if you're the Soviet Union, you still oppress jews by putting "Jewish" as the nationality on their passports :mischief:.

Another realistic benefit could be removing issues caused by multiple nationalities or religions in your empire - i.e. you can't be oppressed specifically for your different religious beliefs if the state recognizes no religions.

Except that in the Soviet Union people were repressed for showing any religious beliefs.

I definitely agree that throughout history religious people have been heavily opposed to scientific advances. I'm just saying i don't think it's viable to put in the game as (unless it can be balanced somehow) it's going to come across as saying that non-religious people are more intelligent.

Also there's no particular example of when a non-religious state has had a scientific 'bonus' over a religious one. I accept the soviet union example but they didnt then develop a 3 or 4 tech lead over the rest of the world. Many advances in science have been made by non-religious people, or religious people who aren't afraid to challenge set beliefs. However, the only reason we know of religious resistance to these advances is that they were made in religious states.

Think maybe there will be a science penalty for Theocracy? I remember the old Civ2 Fundamentalist government had a 50% reduction in science. That way the effects of fanatical religion on science are factored in without implications that any sort of religious influence at all is detrimental. Giving a science bonus to a secular nation alone might leave one with that impression.

Except that in the Soviet Union people were repressed for showing any religious beliefs.True. But if nobody can express those beliefs, they can't be oppressed for being different.

Also there's no particular example of when a non-religious state has had a scientific 'bonus' over a religious one. I accept the soviet union example but they didnt then develop a 3 or 4 tech lead over the rest of the world.Yes, but they caught up quite a long ways. Dirt poor feudal state to modern industrial powerhouse and near technological parity in 30 years. They trained a lot of engineers.

Yes, but they caught up quite a long ways. Dirt poor feudal state to modern industrial powerhouse and near technological parity in 30 years. They trained a lot of engineers.
However, I doubt that was solely because the country was non-religious. Giving a scientific bonus to non-religious states and risking offending every religious buyer of the game seems extreme when there is one example and u can't conclusively prove how much affect the lack of religion had.

True. But if nobody can express those beliefs, they can't be oppressed for being different.


Sure they were. Anybody who expressed any religious beliefs at all were different and oppressed.

Markus6 - You're right. I would say that the anti-religious state policy was mostly only incidental to modernization drive. So it remains a bit of a stretch and we're left with the issue of few possible benefits.

warpstorm - I meant that, at least in theory, you couldn't oppress the people who were formerly religious by treating them worse. Yeah, I know that reasoning is somewhat circular, but if you destroy all the churchs and prohibit religious beliefs then at least the next generation is not going to be oppressed for being religious, and more specifically, you don't get, say, christians and jews duking it out. That's only the theory, though, and in practice as long as religious beliefs or separate ethnic or national identities exist there will be oppression and strife.

Except that is not how it worked out in real life. People secretly kept their religious beliefs for generations under the Soviet regime, waiting for a day they could openly express them. They were caught and persecuted.

Oh yeah, the various religions still had issues with each other.

The people who produced civilization have a few things to learn about the way businesses should treat customers. Civ 3, 4 and revolution have all been defective upon release and this was deliberate. The intent was to get the product out asap and not waste energy making sure it worked. They were relying upon the misplaced loyalty of their fan base which has steadily built up over the years of civ 1 and 2. The fans would be patient and wait for patches to fix the problems and the civ developers could bank the savings they conned from these people instead of spending the dough necessary to make a working, finished product. I was one of those suckered fans and shined on such treatment because I wanted to play the game more than I wanted to think.

The main reason I took off those rose colored glasses was because of this forum. Or rather, the shoddy way the civ’s makers allow this forum to be run. It’s just an extension of their advertising. Of the different forums here I looked at or posted on, only the civ 3 customization and development forum was well run. The moderation of the other forums is some of the worst I’ve seen and openly plays favorites among the posters. They are also frequently uninformed and are essentially only here to promote the games. Racism and bigotry are tolerated, normal reactions to said racism and bigotry get penalized. Posters who are rude and childish, commonly called fan boys, rack up 1000s of posts writing the same material defending the company line, over and over, year in, year out, while most of those with actually something interesting to say are either driven away by these posters, and moderators, or leave out of sheer boredom and disgust with the dogpiling which the moderators encourage.

It was the poor manner in which this forum is run which tipped the scales of my opinion of the business practices of the people who make the civilization games. I had been willing to put up with partially functional games, but one could say the moderator’s behavior opened up my eyes to the behavior of the company towards its customers as a whole. The moderator’s attitude towards civ’s customers matches that of the makers of the game. Very poor, very unprofessional. And it got me to reevaluate why I continued using their products. I’ve come to the conclusion that by posting on this forum, I was providing free advertising for a product I would never now recommend. Similarly, leaving those posts as is would have the same effect.

It’s really too bad. Civ is a promising concept in the right hands, but what we got is a game still mostly using the primitive code it was developed with more than 15 years ago with “improvements” in play patched in over the years. Rather than spend the energy, time and money on truly improving this game, they spent a fraction of it instead on eye candy and advertising. Even many of the simple to correct flaws in civ 1 are still repeated in civ 4. When civ 4 came out, and now especially with that “revolutions” joke, it was obvious the developers were not interested in advancing this series, just in milking it for as much money for as little effort as they could. Being able to edit the game helps, and is its best feature, but that cant counter the flaws of the programming. Rather than make a real effort at improving the ai, which is so poor, it kills single player interest fairly quickly, the makers chose the cheapskate way out by using programming cheats. As I mentioned, too bad. A game that could have actually amounted to something became just another toy for the kids who have everything already.

But that leaves the floor clear for someone else to take this concept and develop it into something worth playing again.

Except that is not how it worked out in real life. People secretly kept their religious beliefs for generations under the Soviet regime, waiting for a day they could openly express them. They were caught and persecuted.

Oh yeah, the various religions still had issues with each other.
Fair enough.

agreed!! i want to be able to make ALL religon illegal!!!

the ppl dont need such rediculess things as religon!! thay have the state to worship!! the state is god!
and ther is no other god except the state!

If I was reading things right, you don't have any choice as to what your people believe in, just what the official policy on religion is. Would official atheism make all of the peeps with a religious preference unhappy?
of corse u do! kill them!

OK for individual scenarios which cover periods or themes where religion might take precidence, but I think otherwise it's a mistake.

Just out of curiosity, can you name a period of history when religion did not play a part?

I hope the editor will allow this to be changed.

Well, I assume that since the foundation of the religions is tied to techs, you could remove the linkage by changing the effect of the tech. This may lead to an unbalanced tech tree, but that could be adjusted.

I'm just saying i don't think it's viable to put in the game as (unless it can be balanced somehow) it's going to come across as saying that non-religious people are more intelligent.

But you are equating "more scientific" with "more intelliegent." I don't believe that is the case; there have been many fundamentalists and theocrats throughout history that have been extremely intelligent and intellectual. Pope John Paul II for instance (and Popes in general) was a very well-read, well-educated, and very intelligent man, I disagree with him strongly on many issues but it would be impossible to deny his intelligence.


Also there's no particular example of when a non-religious state has had a scientific 'bonus' over a religious one.

If you accept that Russia under the Czar was a "religious state" (and it needs to be defined exactly what is a religious state) then clearly the Soviet Union achieved far more than "3 or 4 tech advances" within a comparable time frame.

Giving a scientific bonus to non-religious states and risking offending every religious buyer of the game seems extreme when there is one example...

Only "one example" of a non-religious state throughout history!??! I don't think so.

"and u can't conclusively prove how much affect the lack of religion had

Can you conclusively prove that a theocratic government resulted in a 50% loss of science? How come no one had a problem with scientific penalties for fundamentalist states in Civ II yet they object to its logical implication of a scientific bonus for non-religious states?

I think one could point to many, many examples of questionable bonuses and advantages that are given to certain units, techs, and improvements in all of the Civ games that we could argue about forever and could never be "conclusively" proven.


Just for the record, I am not arguing that a "scientific bonus" should be given to non/anti religious states, my main concern isn't what bonus or advantage could be given to such a government, but only that it is included in the game for those that wish to use it. I only disagree with some of the objections to such a bonus that have been raised by some here.

By the way, the oft-mentioned example of the Soviet Union as an anti-religious state isn't completely accurate; most Soviet leaders played with religion opportunistically as a safety/escape valve for the people to use in dangerous times. So for example, even the most brutal of Soviet leaders, Stalin, opened up the churches again in World War II when Nazi Germany had invaded.

The people who produced civilization have a few things to learn about the way businesses should treat customers. Civ 3, 4 and revolution have all been defective upon release and this was deliberate. The intent was to get the product out asap and not waste energy making sure it worked. They were relying upon the misplaced loyalty of their fan base which has steadily built up over the years of civ 1 and 2. The fans would be patient and wait for patches to fix the problems and the civ developers could bank the savings they conned from these people instead of spending the dough necessary to make a working, finished product. I was one of those suckered fans and shined on such treatment because I wanted to play the game more than I wanted to think.

The main reason I took off those rose colored glasses was because of this forum. Or rather, the shoddy way the civ’s makers allow this forum to be run. It’s just an extension of their advertising. Of the different forums here I looked at or posted on, only the civ 3 customization and development forum was well run. The moderation of the other forums is some of the worst I’ve seen and openly plays favorites among the posters. They are also frequently uninformed and are essentially only here to promote the games. Racism and bigotry are tolerated, normal reactions to said racism and bigotry get penalized. Posters who are rude and childish, commonly called fan boys, rack up 1000s of posts writing the same material defending the company line, over and over, year in, year out, while most of those with actually something interesting to say are either driven away by these posters, and moderators, or leave out of sheer boredom and disgust with the dogpiling which the moderators encourage.

It was the poor manner in which this forum is run which tipped the scales of my opinion of the business practices of the people who make the civilization games. I had been willing to put up with partially functional games, but one could say the moderator’s behavior opened up my eyes to the behavior of the company towards its customers as a whole. The moderator’s attitude towards civ’s customers matches that of the makers of the game. Very poor, very unprofessional. And it got me to reevaluate why I continued using their products. I’ve come to the conclusion that by posting on this forum, I was providing free advertising for a product I would never now recommend. Similarly, leaving those posts as is would have the same effect.

It’s really too bad. Civ is a promising concept in the right hands, but what we got is a game still mostly using the primitive code it was developed with more than 15 years ago with “improvements” in play patched in over the years. Rather than spend the energy, time and money on truly improving this game, they spent a fraction of it instead on eye candy and advertising. Even many of the simple to correct flaws in civ 1 are still repeated in civ 4. When civ 4 came out, and now especially with that “revolutions” joke, it was obvious the developers were not interested in advancing this series, just in milking it for as much money for as little effort as they could. Being able to edit the game helps, and is its best feature, but that cant counter the flaws of the programming. Rather than make a real effort at improving the ai, which is so poor, it kills single player interest fairly quickly, the makers chose the cheapskate way out by using programming cheats. As I mentioned, too bad. A game that could have actually amounted to something became just another toy for the kids who have everything already.

But that leaves the floor clear for someone else to take this concept and develop it into something worth playing again.

Right now, in many parts of the world, religion has very little influence.

And in many it does. Just ask the Islamic or Christian Fundamentalists whether religion influences their decisions and politics. I contend that religion is important in the modern era. So, I ask again, "Can you name a period of history when religion did not play a part?"

The people who produced civilization have a few things to learn about the way businesses should treat customers. Civ 3, 4 and revolution have all been defective upon release and this was deliberate. The intent was to get the product out asap and not waste energy making sure it worked. They were relying upon the misplaced loyalty of their fan base which has steadily built up over the years of civ 1 and 2. The fans would be patient and wait for patches to fix the problems and the civ developers could bank the savings they conned from these people instead of spending the dough necessary to make a working, finished product. I was one of those suckered fans and shined on such treatment because I wanted to play the game more than I wanted to think.

The main reason I took off those rose colored glasses was because of this forum. Or rather, the shoddy way the civ’s makers allow this forum to be run. It’s just an extension of their advertising. Of the different forums here I looked at or posted on, only the civ 3 customization and development forum was well run. The moderation of the other forums is some of the worst I’ve seen and openly plays favorites among the posters. They are also frequently uninformed and are essentially only here to promote the games. Racism and bigotry are tolerated, normal reactions to said racism and bigotry get penalized. Posters who are rude and childish, commonly called fan boys, rack up 1000s of posts writing the same material defending the company line, over and over, year in, year out, while most of those with actually something interesting to say are either driven away by these posters, and moderators, or leave out of sheer boredom and disgust with the dogpiling which the moderators encourage.

It was the poor manner in which this forum is run which tipped the scales of my opinion of the business practices of the people who make the civilization games. I had been willing to put up with partially functional games, but one could say the moderator’s behavior opened up my eyes to the behavior of the company towards its customers as a whole. The moderator’s attitude towards civ’s customers matches that of the makers of the game. Very poor, very unprofessional. And it got me to reevaluate why I continued using their products. I’ve come to the conclusion that by posting on this forum, I was providing free advertising for a product I would never now recommend. Similarly, leaving those posts as is would have the same effect.

It’s really too bad. Civ is a promising concept in the right hands, but what we got is a game still mostly using the primitive code it was developed with more than 15 years ago with “improvements” in play patched in over the years. Rather than spend the energy, time and money on truly improving this game, they spent a fraction of it instead on eye candy and advertising. Even many of the simple to correct flaws in civ 1 are still repeated in civ 4. When civ 4 came out, and now especially with that “revolutions” joke, it was obvious the developers were not interested in advancing this series, just in milking it for as much money for as little effort as they could. Being able to edit the game helps, and is its best feature, but that cant counter the flaws of the programming. Rather than make a real effort at improving the ai, which is so poor, it kills single player interest fairly quickly, the makers chose the cheapskate way out by using programming cheats. As I mentioned, too bad. A game that could have actually amounted to something became just another toy for the kids who have everything already.

But that leaves the floor clear for someone else to take this concept and develop it into something worth playing again.

Well, Warpstorm, essentially you are arguing that something should be in Civ because there is a historical precedent for it in the real world.

Then consider the standard counterargument--Civ is a game in which players can remake history, not replay it as it has happened. Therefore, players should be allowed to create or influence a world in which religion is not influential.

The people who produced civilization have a few things to learn about the way businesses should treat customers. Civ 3, 4 and revolution have all been defective upon release and this was deliberate. The intent was to get the product out asap and not waste energy making sure it worked. They were relying upon the misplaced loyalty of their fan base which has steadily built up over the years of civ 1 and 2. The fans would be patient and wait for patches to fix the problems and the civ developers could bank the savings they conned from these people instead of spending the dough necessary to make a working, finished product. I was one of those suckered fans and shined on such treatment because I wanted to play the game more than I wanted to think.

The main reason I took off those rose colored glasses was because of this forum. Or rather, the shoddy way the civ’s makers allow this forum to be run. It’s just an extension of their advertising. Of the different forums here I looked at or posted on, only the civ 3 customization and development forum was well run. The moderation of the other forums is some of the worst I’ve seen and openly plays favorites among the posters. They are also frequently uninformed and are essentially only here to promote the games. Racism and bigotry are tolerated, normal reactions to said racism and bigotry get penalized. Posters who are rude and childish, commonly called fan boys, rack up 1000s of posts writing the same material defending the company line, over and over, year in, year out, while most of those with actually something interesting to say are either driven away by these posters, and moderators, or leave out of sheer boredom and disgust with the dogpiling which the moderators encourage.

It was the poor manner in which this forum is run which tipped the scales of my opinion of the business practices of the people who make the civilization games. I had been willing to put up with partially functional games, but one could say the moderator’s behavior opened up my eyes to the behavior of the company towards its customers as a whole. The moderator’s attitude towards civ’s customers matches that of the makers of the game. Very poor, very unprofessional. And it got me to reevaluate why I continued using their products. I’ve come to the conclusion that by posting on this forum, I was providing free advertising for a product I would never now recommend. Similarly, leaving those posts as is would have the same effect.

It’s really too bad. Civ is a promising concept in the right hands, but what we got is a game still mostly using the primitive code it was developed with more than 15 years ago with “improvements” in play patched in over the years. Rather than spend the energy, time and money on truly improving this game, they spent a fraction of it instead on eye candy and advertising. Even many of the simple to correct flaws in civ 1 are still repeated in civ 4. When civ 4 came out, and now especially with that “revolutions” joke, it was obvious the developers were not interested in advancing this series, just in milking it for as much money for as little effort as they could. Being able to edit the game helps, and is its best feature, but that cant counter the flaws of the programming. Rather than make a real effort at improving the ai, which is so poor, it kills single player interest fairly quickly, the makers chose the cheapskate way out by using programming cheats. As I mentioned, too bad. A game that could have actually amounted to something became just another toy for the kids who have everything already.

But that leaves the floor clear for someone else to take this concept and develop it into something worth playing again.

warpstorm
Do these influences really affect the leadership of the countries of the world? Do they really determine the relationships between the leadership of countries of the world? Or are they just tools being used by world leaders to further old fashioned quests for control of more land, resources and trade?

I think it is the latter.



While I will not deny that religion has been used to justify any act, that just means that it must be a very powerful influence or it wouldn't work. Sincerity is not needed for the use of religion as a tool.

I do think that many leaders of the world see (and saw) their decisions through the tint of their religious beliefs. W, for example, does. So much so that he is alienating many of the people who voted for him (and many who didn't). Jimmy Carter was a very deeply religious man and it influenced his every decision. The decision on who will tip the scales on US Supreme Court is pretty much hinged on a religious issue.

A majority of believers (or even personal belief) is not required for religion to have an influence in someone's life. Ask anyone who has survived a religious extremist's bombings or any survivor of the Holocaust. You may think it doesn't play a part in modern life, but in the USA (a small country you may have heard of), most people take part in religious services every week even though they are not being forced to.

Edit: I was wrong, only 44% of Americans go to church a week.

53% of Americans consider religion to be very important in their lives. This compares with 16% in Britain, 14% in France and 13% in Germany.

(Of course, these numbers come from polls and may be totally incorrect).

The people who produced civilization have a few things to learn about the way businesses should treat customers. Civ 3, 4 and revolution have all been defective upon release and this was deliberate. The intent was to get the product out asap and not waste energy making sure it worked. They were relying upon the misplaced loyalty of their fan base which has steadily built up over the years of civ 1 and 2. The fans would be patient and wait for patches to fix the problems and the civ developers could bank the savings they conned from these people instead of spending the dough necessary to make a working, finished product. I was one of those suckered fans and shined on such treatment because I wanted to play the game more than I wanted to think.

The main reason I took off those rose colored glasses was because of this forum. Or rather, the shoddy way the civ’s makers allow this forum to be run. It’s just an extension of their advertising. Of the different forums here I looked at or posted on, only the civ 3 customization and development forum was well run. The moderation of the other forums is some of the worst I’ve seen and openly plays favorites among the posters. They are also frequently uninformed and are essentially only here to promote the games. Racism and bigotry are tolerated, normal reactions to said racism and bigotry get penalized. Posters who are rude and childish, commonly called fan boys, rack up 1000s of posts writing the same material defending the company line, over and over, year in, year out, while most of those with actually something interesting to say are either driven away by these posters, and moderators, or leave out of sheer boredom and disgust with the dogpiling which the moderators encourage.

It was the poor manner in which this forum is run which tipped the scales of my opinion of the business practices of the people who make the civilization games. I had been willing to put up with partially functional games, but one could say the moderator’s behavior opened up my eyes to the behavior of the company towards its customers as a whole. The moderator’s attitude towards civ’s customers matches that of the makers of the game. Very poor, very unprofessional. And it got me to reevaluate why I continued using their products. I’ve come to the conclusion that by posting on this forum, I was providing free advertising for a product I would never now recommend. Similarly, leaving those posts as is would have the same effect.

It’s really too bad. Civ is a promising concept in the right hands, but what we got is a game still mostly using the primitive code it was developed with more than 15 years ago with “improvements” in play patched in over the years. Rather than spend the energy, time and money on truly improving this game, they spent a fraction of it instead on eye candy and advertising. Even many of the simple to correct flaws in civ 1 are still repeated in civ 4. When civ 4 came out, and now especially with that “revolutions” joke, it was obvious the developers were not interested in advancing this series, just in milking it for as much money for as little effort as they could. Being able to edit the game helps, and is its best feature, but that cant counter the flaws of the programming. Rather than make a real effort at improving the ai, which is so poor, it kills single player interest fairly quickly, the makers chose the cheapskate way out by using programming cheats. As I mentioned, too bad. A game that could have actually amounted to something became just another toy for the kids who have everything already.

But that leaves the floor clear for someone else to take this concept and develop it into something worth playing again.

As some of you were talking about the separation of State and Church in Europe :
it first occured with the french revolution for a few years, but was really implemented at the beginning of the XXth century. Actually, with an exception for Alsace region. You may notice that many countries kept their kings and queens in Europe...

The "free religion" system to me sounds like the separation between the State and the Church. "Religio" in latin originally means "link". Atheism, Agnostism or whatever-ism should not pretend not to have similarities to what is commonly called "religion".
Marxist-inspired atheism wouldn't have existed without christian monotheism, where it finds its roots.

So if you can choose the belief you wish, that sounds ok to me.

OK, haven't read the whole thread but looking at the civics options there are

Two that are definitely religious
Organized religion and Theocracy

Two that are definitely non religious/secular
Primitivism and Freedom of Religion

and one that I can't be sure of but sounds secular in the game's context
Pacifism

Pacifism is what I would imagine the Roman empire model would be, ie all religions are stamped out/discouraged. However it gives some type of assimilation bonus (to balance out the fact that the cities of your 'official religion' are slowly disappearing robbing you of that bonus...or the fact that you have no official religion).

ok, i gotta ask, how is scientific(as opposed to ideological) atheism, ie:marxism, based on christianity? it is a materialist interpretation of hegel's idealist dialectics of the supreme idea....

and i guess the point of those who back the idea presented in this thread is this:
some states take a militant stance toward some/all religions, why cant this be represented in the game?

i myself would love to be able to create a militant atheist communist state, but under the current civics options, that doesnt seem possible...

I think Free Religion makes it a less American concept and something slightly more universal. The idea of "separation of church and state" is a very American idea, not even Western Europeans have that idea. So I think it's good that they chose a more general term capturing the similar concept.

ok, i gotta ask, how is scientific(as opposed to ideological) atheism, ie:marxism, based on christianity? it is a materialist interpretation of hegel's idealist dialectics of the supreme idea....

and i guess the point of those who back the idea presented in this thread is this:
some states take a militant stance toward some/all religions, why cant this be represented in the game?

i myself would love to be able to create a militant atheist communist state, but under the current civics options, that doesnt seem possible...

Well we don't know exactly what Primitivism and Pacifism actually are yet.

Well we probably know what Primitivism is, the starting option. Which means its geared for a time when you have no religion... and if it is not like Despotism, ie an option to lose as soon as possible, then it might be the model for the militantly atheist state.

Secondly, I think the Pacifism option might also be an anti-all religions one (because the Freedom of Religion is quite obviously from the name and benefits a 'tolerate all religions' one)

Because although the Name is pacifism remember that it has to include Police State and Universal Suffrage governments and Nationhood and Freedom of Speech laws.
So I could imagine a mildly anti-religious government(that makes sure religion never gets in the way of the state) would be Universal Suffrage, Freedom of Speech, Emancipation, Pacifism
Wheras a militantly anti-religious (that also make sure religion never gets in the way of the state) would be Police State, Different legal and labor options, and Pacifism.

After all the Religious option isn't the only one that would influence religion.
I'd imagine Police State could reduce religious spread, and Freedom of Speech could increase it (and things like Theocracy could increase it for the official religion)
[So the reason Roman Imperial 'Pacifism' didn't work at suppressing Religions in its borders is because they had a despotism rather than a modern Police State for the government option... and because the Holy Cities of those religions were in thier borders.]

what i hope they include is the option to have just NO religion, so one could have a STATE RELIGION: NONE
REPRESSED RELIGIONS: ALL

so, yeah, i just hope that is an option if there are no ways to select an anti religious stance otherwise...

oh, and minger, the french invented the concept of seperation of church and state in modern times... they are VERY western european...

what i hope they include is the option to have just NO religion, so one could have a STATE RELIGION: NONE
REPRESSED RELIGIONS: ALL

so, yeah, i just hope that is an option if there are no ways to select an anti religious stance otherwise...

oh, and minger, the french invented the concept of seperation of church and state in modern times... they are VERY western european...

Well you Probably will be able to have no Official Religion because you have to at the beginning of the game (there are no religions then) It could be that some Civics require a state religion and some prohibit a state religion.

so the effective civics options may more like

Primitivism

Pacifism

Free Religion (None)
Free Religion (Christian)
Free Religion (Jewish)
Free Religion (Muslim)
Free Religion (Daoist)
Free Religion (Hindu)
Free Religion (Confucian)
Free Religion (Buddhist)

Theocracy (Christian)
Theocracy (Jewish)
Theocracy (Muslim)
Theocracy (Daoist)
Theocracy (Hindu)
Theocracy (Confucian)
Theocracy (Buddhist)

Organized (Christian)
Organized (Jewish)
Organized(Muslim)
Organized(Daoist)
Organized(Hindu)
Organized(Confucian)
Organized(Buddhist)

no what i meant was more of a
Theocracy (none)
although that doesnt realy make too much sense though does it....

no what i meant was more of a
Theocracy (none)
although that doesnt realy make too much sense though does it....
Seems like an appropriate description of the Soviet Union ;).

oh, and minger, the french invented the concept of seperation of church and state in modern times... they are VERY western european...


Really? I thought America did. There was still a king in France during the American Revolution and I always assummed that he pulled the good ol' divine right trick, which is definatly not seperation of church and state. The French Revolution didn't happen until 1789, I think, I don't remember exactly. I could be wrong though, you know, there isn't much emphasis on World History in the American school system :(. But there's still a few of us that reallize the world isn't entirily within our borders... yet :devil:

How can you guys have separation of church and state when u've still got 'In God we trust' on your currency?

Ok. Maybe I didn't explain it correctly. The thing is not about State-Mandated religion, it is about who is the political ruler and who is the religious ruler. Whereas in Europe the two rulers have been different for a long time, in muslim countries, as far as I know, the ruler of the country is also the ruler of the church.

The muslims do not have a church, and there is no head of the muslim religion. Rulers in medieval Islamic states were not, by and large, religious figures of any importance but quite secular, although they were adherents. Situations as in modern-day Iran are the exception, not the rule.

On the other hand. Christianity is organized into churches, most of which have a head. The head of the largest church is the ruler of a sovereign nation (the Vatican). In addition, the Pope wielded political authority over kings during the Middle Ages.

Finally, the most noteworthy European state during the era of European dominance had a state religion, and the head of the state religion was also head of state - the Church of England. Right up to the present day!

How can you guys have separation of church and state when u've still got 'In God we trust' on your currency?

It's money, how can you complain? ;)
That's a really complicated answer and I'll do my best to answer it
That was originally primarily an anti-Soviet move because the USSR was an officialy anti-religion state (kinda like the one that REX GRACCHVS wants to create). Also, no Government money goes to any church, and our laws are not based directly on any religion. Things like don't kill, don't steal, etc. are pretty universal. That said, our politics are influenced indirectly by religion because everyone votes and there is a significant population of Religious Conservitives that do make political choices based on their religion, and politicians will court them to get those votes. But as for our government, it does not answer to any religious official, nor does it support any specific type of religion. This is an arguement that comes up around here a lot because the idea of seperation of church and state is very important to many Americans, but there is debate as to where that line belongs. Most people feel that "In God We Trust" is not a Government endorsement of religion, but some do. There are extremists that feel that even the slightest mention of God by any public offical, or even a private citizen on public property, is too far. Personally, I think that that is ridiculous, because even public officials are entitled to their own religous beliefs, etc. On the other hand there are those that feel that we should put our nation in God's hands and our leaders should base their decisions based on what the say God told them. I don't agree with that either,after all, look at what atrocities have been done in the name of "God." So that is a very complicated arguement that we hear about one side or the other complaining about this or that, it get's really old really fast.

But as for the history of seperation of church and state, I do believe that was an American idea. It was one of the founding principles of our country. Our Founding Fathers recoganized the ability of a government to abuse a religion to justify just about anything, and vice versa. I don't think any other nation before had done that. Even Napolean was crowned by the Pope, granted he siezed the crown from the Pope, which is added siginifigance in that it was a sign of the weakening power of the church politically.

and one that I can't be sure of but sounds secular in the game's context
Pacifism

Pacifism is what I would imagine the Roman empire model would be, ie all religions are stamped out/discouraged. However it gives some type of assimilation bonus (to balance out the fact that the cities of your 'official religion' are slowly disappearing robbing you of that bonus...or the fact that you have no official religion).

huh? How is "stamping out" anything pacifist? Anyway, Christianity was for a good chunk of its history a pacifist religion, particularly prior to the Crusades (which were quite an aberration at the time). The Roman empire hardly "stamped out all religions", it actively encouraged foreign religions to bring their cults to Rome and a number of foreign religions became quite popular, especially Mithraism. Christians were persecuted for a number of reasons, but most particularly because the polytheism of Rome took offense at the idea of a religion which would not participate in the free exchange of gods, if thats the right way to put it. Christian monotheism denied the existance of all the other gods, which from a Roman point of view was highly offensive; Rome liked to find analogies with other gods in their own pantheon and incorporate different elements from each version. For instance, in Roman Britain the Briton's god of war, Camulos, was seen as a version of Mars and Roman artists in Britain would depict Mars with features of Camulos and vice-versa. The idea that a god was exclusive and particularly the denial of other deities was seen as quite offensive.

Add to that the excessive hostility of Christians to Rome. Revelations is a thinly veiled diatribe against Rome, sputtering with hate, and is the kind of thing that really ticked them off. The first major persecutions of Christians as Christians (and not as Jews) occurred shortly after the Great Fire of Rome, when Christians were seen to be passing out copies of Revelation and dancing in the city, singing Hallelujah and claiming the New Jerusalem would shortly arrive. Also they were absolutely hostile to everything about the Roman lifestyle; athleticism, the lifestyle of the baths, eroticism, open admiration of the naked form, wealth and luxury (early Christians believed poverty was a virtue) and so on. Long and short is, Christians were singled out for persecution because of their nature, but the persecution of religion was not a typical Roman value at all.

Well my point was that of all the religions that are both
1. counted as religions in the game
and
2. were encountered by rome

They were both, Jews and Christians, persecuted (until Rome went the theocracy/organized religion route) even if not consistently.



The problem with figuring out Pacifism is with the difference between Pacifism towards religious things and Freedom of Religion

The best way for me to see that is that with Pacifism, the government will have nothing to do with religious things (at least not game level religions) So if you have a Freedom of Speech legal code, then government and religion leave each other alone... However if your legal code is Bureaucracy or Nationhood, or your government is Police State, then government controls everything, so if it won't have anything to do with religion then religion can't exist.

I would see this as the Civics option for 'Pacifying' people like the Romans did... say it prevents you from having an official religion, (meaning all religions are slightly unhappy with you) but helps in assimilation, or in suppressing unhappiness becauser you are ruled over by another nationality... so the Pacifism Civic hels a Roman empire 'Pacify' the Greek cities its taken.

This seems a bit of a stetch but it makes sense for an 'advanced' anti-religious government (wheras primitivism would insist on everyone worshiping the Roman gods and only the Roman gods instead of putting them into a big pantheon and making sure the emperor was included...which would be resisted by the major religions as they compete with the emperor for ultimate allegiance)

Essentially I'd say
Primitivism suppresses minor religions (ie culture)... so provides no bonuses
Pacifism suppresses major (game religions) only and incorporates minor ones so provides some type of an assimilation bonus
Freedom of Religion... suppresses nothing so gives a bonus for variety
Organized religion+Theocracy encourage one over the others, and so give a some type of a bonus for that religion..and a penalty for the others?

That keeps Pacifism and Freedom of Religion as actually separate options, unless Pacifism is just a weaker Freedom of Religion option. (part way between Freedom and Organized Religion)

wheras primitivism would insist on everyone worshiping the Roman gods and only the Roman gods instead of putting them into a big pantheon and making sure the emperor was included...which would be resisted by the major religions as they compete with the emperor for ultimate allegiance

That's not how it worked at all. They didn't make worship of Roman gods exclusive or deny the worship of foreign deities ... in fact, they rather enjoyed taking foreign gods and "putting them into one big pantheon". The emperor wasn't a god in the same sense as the other gods, he did not have priests and temples and so on. He was a sort of symbolic god ... you made a public show of worshipping the emperor to show your allegiance to Rome, the same mechanism as the Pledge of Allegiance. People didn't actually think he had magical powers or anything. His "godhood" was more like being a superstar than a supernatural, and "worshipping" him just meant showing public respect for Rome not worship in the same sense as you would worship the Christian God - nothing mystical or spiritual about it at all, really.

Well my point was that of all the religions that are both
1. counted as religions in the game
and
2. were encountered by rome

They were both, Jews and Christians, persecuted

The only reason that the others that the Romans encountered didn't make it into the game, was that they were utterly stamped out by Christians.

Also Jews were not persecuted because of their religion, though it did at times come into conflict with Roman beliefs ... most persecution of the Jews was because of their nationality. What was happening in Judea even before the Romans arrived on the scene, starting with the Hellenization of Judea in Alexander's time, was that some Jews welcomed the new culture and began to adopt some of its customs, and other Jews were more conservative and felt that their culture and way of life was threatened. These factions fought continuously, with radical, terrorist groups developing on the conservative side and harsh crackdowns coming from Hellenistic and later Roman authorities. It was not unlike the conflict in Islamic countries today over Westernization. You had groups like the Siccari, literally "Dagger Men" who would murder Romans and not-conservative-enough Jews in broad daylight, the Zealots who tried to starve the people of Jerusalem to get them to oppose the Romans and so on. The Roman response to resistance was very brutal, which was entirely normal for anyone at the time. But it was a response to the resistance and specific incidents of resistance, not a response to the religion per se. Other groups which resisted Rome or created radical armed factions, such as the Druids, were persecuted in the same way (the Druids were actually much more thoroughly persecuted and eventually exterminated, because they did not have any moderate elements to resettle).

That's not how it worked at all. They didn't make worship of Roman gods exclusive or deny the worship of foreign deities ... in fact, they rather enjoyed taking foreign gods and "putting them into one big pantheon". The emperor wasn't a god in the same sense as the other gods, he did not have priests and temples and so on. He was a sort of symbolic god ... you made a public show of worshipping the emperor to show your allegiance to Rome, the same mechanism as the Pledge of Allegiance. People didn't actually think he had magical powers or anything. His "godhood" was more like being a superstar than a supernatural, and "worshipping" him just meant showing public respect for Rome not worship in the same sense as you would worship the Christian God - nothing mystical or spiritual about it at all, really.

That was my point. In my guess of the Civics options, Romans practiced Pacifism (putting all gods in a big pantheon and some type of emperor worship/loyalty oath/etc.), not Primitivism. Game level religions would object to worshipping the emperor for whatever reasons, and so would be persecuted automatically.
I'd imagine Pacifism being a fairly important Civic option for being able to maintain a multiethnic empire.


The only reason that the others that the Romans encountered didn't make it into the game, was that they were utterly stamped out by Christians.

Those religions would by and large be the religions that everyone "starts with" ie the ones whose effect is considered local enough or limited enough that they count as None (not No religion but no 'major religion')
I do agree that there were arising things like the cult of Mithras and such that had the potential to be major type religions and were Not persecuted by the Romans as far as I know, but those just show the limitation of the games correspondence to real history.


Also Jews were not persecuted because of their religion, though it did at times come into conflict with Roman beliefs ... most persecution of the Jews was because of their nationality.

However Jewish nationality, especially at that time, was equivalent to their religion.


Pacifism I would consider the idea that the state does not care "is passive" about religious things BUT, religions that are on the game level demand recognition, and therefore will be troublesome unless recognized. The fact that they cause trouble for the state means that they would be persecuted. The persecution implies that their spread will be decreased.
Freedom of Religion is the option that lets you truly recognize multiple religions at once, which would tend to allow greater spread of religions.

I'm sure since the religion issue is new in Civ 4 they are going to be careful not to add too much in the beginning.Also this "no religion" option shouldn't be too hard to mod after all.(IMO no such thing as no religion/belief system in the real world.) Probably in the expansion they will add options more if it play out well. Hopefully religion will add more to the game to make it more interesting.

I was thinking of what the effects would be for the athiesm civic/religion if they had one.

1. slight science bonus
2. 85-90% immunity to religiuos convertion.(harder to convince someone who doesn't believe in god to believe in god)
3. increase unhappiness caused by police state Civic(more willing to question things, you could still have a police state, it would just be harder)
4. lower your regard with religious civs.

also you could still have missionaries they would just be convincing people to not believe in god.

i was thinking it could appear around 1850 or so.

I think the game should definately reflect the rise of secularism, not just in terms of government but in terms of the culture as well. It's extremely historically signifigant as the rise of secularism made the modern age possible. However, it's possible I suppose that the concept is included in the game as most secular states are associated with one religion or another.

I could imagine a system where you've got an advance (secularism, separation of church and state, whatever you want to call it) that changes the effects of religion in the game.

Cube4, it's hard to say that Athiesm should make more unhappiness in a police state. Communists try to stamp out religion for a reason. remember, the devs also said that religions wont have seperate effects (because it is such a hot issue).

While some in this thread have stated the Soviet Union to have been an "atheistic" state, I would say that this is completely wrong.

The SU WAS a religious state, they just exchanged one belief against one other.
THEIR belief was about the superiority of the theories of Marx and Lenin, and I remember very well some discussions with former NVA (national people's army of the former German Democratic Republic) officers, who reported to have had some passages in their diploma (about anti-air missiles - so quite a scientific topic) regarding theories of Marx and Lenin and others, to prove why a soviet AA-missile was superior to the ones of the west.

If this doesn't make for a belief, what else would make so?

But the Soviet Union's "religion" was certainly a very different sort -- one anchored not in cross-cultural doctrinal teachings but in an ultra-nationalist worship of the state itself. That is a key distinction.

While some in this thread have stated the Soviet Union to have been an "atheistic" state, I would say that this is completely wrong.

The SU WAS a religious state, they just exchanged one belief against one other.
THEIR belief was about the superiority of the theories of Marx and Lenin, and I remember very well some discussions with former NVA (national people's army of the former German Democratic Republic) officers, who reported to have had some passages in their diploma (about anti-air missiles - so quite a scientific topic) regarding theories of Marx and Lenin and others, to prove why a soviet AA-missile was superior to the ones of the west.

If this doesn't make for a belief, what else would make so?

It was atheistic, religiously atheistic (at least early on it was religiously communist...in the cross-cultural doctrine that Stephan talks about) later on it moved to the nationalistic worship of the state itself, with devotion to the communist ideals slowly waning.

I Could imagine that a tech advance could increase the chance of a city losing its religion.

However, the cities with No official religion would not be something that is a modern development, since No religion just means none of the major ones. A city with 'None' religion could be
1. Highly secular
or
2. Highly commited to some philosophy Not described by the major religions

Both of those have occured throughout history.. a Communist state today is a Pagan state in the middle ages... and about the time 'Pagan' cities began being wiped out, 'Secular' or 'Humanism' began appearing. (probably the highest point for religious cities would be the middle ages since most 'Pagan' states were merely limited in contact, from 'Religious states, and once broad contact becan so did 'Humanistic'/Secular Philosophies.. although they took a while to break free from their religious roots.

While some in this thread have stated the Soviet Union to have been an "atheistic" state, I would say that this is completely wrong.

The SU WAS a religious state, they just exchanged one belief against one other.
THEIR belief was about the superiority of the theories of Marx and Lenin, and I remember very well some discussions with former NVA (national people's army of the former German Democratic Republic) officers, who reported to have had some passages in their diploma (about anti-air missiles - so quite a scientific topic) regarding theories of Marx and Lenin and others, to prove why a soviet AA-missile was superior to the ones of the west.

If this doesn't make for a belief, what else would make so?

Atheisism means that they do not believe in God, not that they don't have beliefs. Just because they have beliefs doesn't mean that they are religious. I don't think anyone would argue that the Soviets didn't believe in the theories Marx and Engles, but that was a politiacal belief, not a religous belief. It is definatly a belief, but as Stephan mentioned, there is a distinction

Atheisism means that they do not believe in God, not that they don't have beliefs. Just because they have beliefs doesn't mean that they are religious. I don't think anyone would argue that the Soviets didn't believe in the theories Marx and Engles, but that was a politiacal belief, not a religous belief. It is definatly a belief, but as Stephan mentioned, there is a distinction

If you have a closer look at their personal cults (think of Lenin's Maussoleum at the Kremlin) and the way in which they thought and talked about Marx' and Lenin's theories, one could very well assume that this was at least very close to religion.
Ok, it might have been a materialistic religion, but where is the difference?

If you have a closer look at their personal cults (think of Lenin's Maussoleum at the Kremlin) and the way in which they thought and talked about Marx' and Lenin's theories, one could very well assume that this was at least very close to religion.
Ok, it might have been a materialistic religion, but where is the difference?

It's definately true that after a certain point, the USSR developed many institutions and a general theme that corresponded in many ways to a religious movement, particularly in that it had messianic figures and a program to fight or convert "evil" and bring about the "salvation of mankind".

But, this wasn't the case for the entire history of the USSR. It's really more characteristic of Stalinism. And in any of its incarnations, it was a-theistic, since it did not believe in any sort of supernatural being(s). Religion doesn't necessarily imply a belief in a supreme being or deities of any kind, as there are several Eastern religions in which such beliefs are entirely optional. It's not accurate to say that the USSR wasn't atheist, as it was, whether or not it had a semi-religious format. Atheist, but not necessarily areligious.

i want a 1984/brave new world state and i cant do that with out being able to make religon illegal!


y is "pacifism" under the religons opstions? thay shold replace it with a sep of crch and state

From what I understand you will be able to Mod Civ.4 anyway you like, but if thats the only thing thats holding you back from buying Civ.4 when it comes
out, it seem like a pretty weak reason not to buy it. It sounds like Civ.4 will offer more for the modding cumminty then any other strategy game ever made, no game is perfect but modding allows people to make a game in their image with their values! lets not worry about the little things, Civ.4 will offer alot more then most games for only $50!!

As far as I am concern, Freedom of Religion is separation of church and state as it is the one that says the government doesn't care what relgion your people are.

Sorry to beat a dead horse here, but I don't think the option of increased science or education under an aetheist/ secular government is necassarily a bigotted or anti-religious viewpoint. The simple fact is that religion and spirituality in many ways can delay scientific progress. Take, for example "pagan", shamanistic, or "primitave" religions when confronted with foreign technology. For example, the beliefs that photographs steal souls or that men should be hunters and warriors.These belief systems often had ideas concerning the working of the cosmos, the use of resources, or the methods of education in society that directly conflicted with the kinds of system needed for an industrial, technological state. The famous cases of scientific heretics in middle ages/rennasaince europe illustrates how organized religion can often work against scientific progress that directly contradicts or challenges religious doctrine. Yet other belief systems believe that technology distracts people from spiritual goals and leads to materialism. One excellent example of the science/religion conflict is the stem cell debate in the United States. The use/research of stem-cell technology is being hampered by a largely religious faction, or a faction at least loyal to religious constituents. This direct religious persecution of a potentially (though probably very over-hyped) phenomenol new technology is a perfect example of when spirituality and religion squares off against scientific reason to determine what is best and most ethical for a society. Because science often has new ideas for how the universe is defined and what it's ethics are, religion will find itsself in direct conflict. Any student of history knows dozens of examples of societies that refused to adapt due to their view of how existence is, or at least should be, organized. Thus, I don't think there's any real debate that religion can, and has, conflicted with the goals of science. Such statements are not anti-religious rhetoric, nor do they imply that religious people are "stupid". They simply stem from an age-old social phenomenon that religious persons should just accept, just as aetheists have accepted the many frauds, mistakes, and atrocities of science's history. Sorry for the long post.

Sorry to beat a dead horse here, but I don't think the option of increased science or education under an aetheist/ secular government is necassarily a bigotted or anti-religious viewpoint.

I don't think so either, but, I think we'll really have to wait for release to render any judgement. It's entirely possible there is some mechanism (an advance, perhaps, or a feature of certain governments) that changes how religion works in the game. In a way that would be more accurate, since secular societies do not really abandon religion entirely, it's role just becomes minimized and a plurality of religions becomes acceptable without friction.

However I would be very disappointed if it were not present in the game in some form ... the rise of secularism is strongly related to the development of a true scientifically advanced society, and cultures which have not adopted it remain primitive by comparison. A classic 20th century example might be Ataturk and what he did for Turkish society.

Yuck...is my spelling really that bad? Anyways, I agree - we should probably reserve judgement until we know more about how it is implemented in the game. I have a strong feeling, based on the developer interviews explaining that they were wary of controversy concerning including religion in the game, that civ4 will make an earnest attempt to appear as unbiased as possible.

ok, when stalin created the personality cults of himself, marx and lenin, he did make it sem kind of religios, but the point is, although the soviet state pushed forth this idealisation of these people, it still pushed a militantly atheist stance towards religion proper as opposed to state worship, or leader worship, the diference lies in the fact that they did not ascribe powers to the dead leaders and such, only the simpsons did that(my favorite episode...)


and as to the idea of atheist states getting an increase in scienge, i agree, but i dont think it should be science, i think it should be overall trade, because once there is no religios force blocking people from pursuing their aims, merchants can do their work more efficiently, and scientists no longer have religious bigots hounding them and denouncing their ideas as heretical

after reading this thread, i am more excited about the new religion system is Civ 4 than ever before!! :D can't wait to see how it plays out.

i certainly hope that you will be able to create what some have suggested, a state where all religions are banned and opressed hihihi. i'd love to create such a nation. But i will definatley want to build a theocratic fundamentalist state as well. seems only the latter option will be available, wich is a shame, more gameplay options add more variety and more fun to the game. :)

On the idea of boosted science under atheism.

While this may seem intuitively correct I don't think that is the case. For starters, most of the great scientists of the past have been religious (Einstein, Newton, Galileo). In addition, many of the major countries that have made contributions scientifically were at the time compartively religious (Greece, Italy, England, present day USA), while atheist states eg USSR have been backward (though of course this could be due to many reasons). Finally not all sciences in Civ are scientific. Getting a bonus to researching monotheism if your atheist is nonsensical.

I think a better candidate for scientific boost would be the freedom of religion civic. (I dont think religions should gain bonuses)

I see your arguements for a science bonus for an athesist state, as religion is generally unable to cope with change and occasionally do hinder science, but on the other hand, it was monks in monestaries (sp) that preserved much knowledge during the dark ages. Although there are religious factions that are sceptical of science, I think most are not.

Monks in the middle ages indeed were some of the only scientists/ keepers of knowledge, but because they were amongst the only educated, literate people who possessed the facitlities and time to do so. Aethiest states such as Maoist China or the Soviet union lagged technologically not because of their secularism but because of their economies and general lack of free expression. And, while many great scientists were themselves religious, very few were what could be considered fundamentalists, and the context we are discussing is not about the individual scientist's but of society's view towards religion. Actually, I see no reason that, like the example of the middle-ages monastary, some religious institutions may actually promote science. Civ 4 need not punish players who play as a religious society, but still should pay some heed to the more-or-less proven correlation between secular and scientific movements.

I think secularism is the most accurate term. Separation of church and state doesn't necessarily guarantee that religious dogma will not retard science. It takes a secular society (not just gov't) which restricts the role of religion, without outright abolishing it. Also, the scientific benefits of secularism were being felt long before secularism itself was formalized in the separation of church and state.

Communism wasn't necessarily scientifically backwards ... it was the Soviets who first conducted military exercises involving entire units equipped with tracked vehicles, as opposed to using such equipment as merely a support element for infantry divisions. It was an experiment in developing new ways of fighting in the unique conditions of winter terrain and ruined, muddy landscapes. This Mechanized Brigade was active as early as 1929, far before Guderian's panzer corps. That such lessons were poorly implemented by the time of Barbarossa is more to do with the man, Stalin, than lack of the potential to have done so.

Also, the Soviets made a number of advances in physics, rocketry and chemistry, as well as putting the first satellite into orbit, the first man into space, and the first space station. The Soviets also developed the first succesful helicopter upon which all modern designs are based, and Sikorsky is regarded as the father of helicopters (there were choppers before this, but none were succesful). They were behind the US but easily made more contributions than any other single nation besides the US. The chief difference was that Soviet science did not find commercial application, but was restricted to the state and the military - so American science spread to the world, Western nations became advanced because they benefitted from it, while Soviet science remained restricted and the Eastern bloc did not advance technologically, outside of the military and space program.

However, Soviet scientific advancements would have been equally possible under some sort of theocratic totalitarianism, or any command economy system in which the government had power to marshall such impressive resources to lavish on specific research mega-projects, and I think had little to do with atheism ... Soviet society was as intellectually rigid as any fundamentalist religion.

The emperor wasn't a god in the same sense as the other gods, he did not have priests and temples and so on. He was a sort of symbolic god ... you made a public show of worshipping the emperor to show your allegiance to Rome... His "godhood" was more like being a superstar than a supernatural, and "worshipping" him just meant showing public respect for Rome not worship in the same sense as you would worship the Christian God - nothing mystical or spiritual about it at all, really.
Sorry, but I must disagree with you. Some emperors did have priests and temples. Augustus was deified and prayed to as "the divine Augustus" and there were priests and temples dedicated to him. However, this didn't happen until after his death. His wife, Livia Augusta, was deified many years later, after her death. Caligula, on the other hand, demanded to be worshipped while he was still alive (he considered himself to be Jove/Zeus). A temple was dedicated to Claudius while he was still alive, although he only permitted it for political reasons (so as not to offend the locals). But he in turn was deified after his death.

There may be other examples, but with over 1000 years of Roman and Byzantine Emperors, I'm not familiar with all of them! :D

Christian monks in the middle ages are pretty much directly responsible for the lack of education and scientific development. The only writing, just about the only formal schooling was based on the Bible and religious teachings. Old books written by Archimedes and the Greeks were taken apart and used to write out the psalms.

Not all monks were necessarily devoutly religious, but many would have enjoyed reading and learning languages, this form of education was good but the churches' hold over most Europeans was partly the reason why most of the populace was kept illiterate (the other reason seems to be that many people didn't have the need to learn).

Yet I think that most societies which placed piety and faith above scientific pursuit and learning have stymied their own advancement, case in point: the fine line walked by Leonardo DaVinci. Lets just say I am no fan of this new so-called "Christian Science" either. I will be modding more civics options into my games and I'll probably be putting in a scientific penalty to offset the happiness gained to some but not all of the religious buildings. Just my opinion and I'm open to debate...

Monks in the middle ages indeed were some of the only scientists/ keepers of knowledge, but because they were amongst the only educated, literate people who possessed the facitlities and time to do so. Aethiest states such as Maoist China or the Soviet union lagged technologically not because of their secularism but because of their economies and general lack of free expression. And, while many great scientists were themselves religious, very few were what could be considered fundamentalists, and the context we are discussing is not about the individual scientist's but of society's view towards religion. Actually, I see no reason that, like the example of the middle-ages monastary, some religious institutions may actually promote science. Civ 4 need not punish players who play as a religious society, but still should pay some heed to the more-or-less proven correlation between secular and scientific movements.

i think a good idea would be to lessen the cultural and happy effect of religios structures(but not wonders) in secular civs, while giving those secular civs a small but noticable boost in science


Soviet scientific advancements would have been equally possible under some sort of theocratic totalitarianism, or any command economy system in which the government had power to marshall such impressive resources to lavish on specific research mega-projects, and I think had little to do with atheism

actually it had everything to do with the state aligned atheism, see you say that it would be possible to have made these advances in tech in a theocratic state with enugh resources, well think about this, how would one reconcile the vatican belief if the flatness of the earth(not any more, but they used to) with the ability to create large rockets to launch at the moon, using physics to figure out the fact that the rocket needs to fly around the earth (but wouldnt be able to do if it believed the world was flat) to be able to reach the moon?


it is not about the intolerance of individuals, but about the mass, the ability of an institution or state to abopt new ideas, that is why theocratic states are more stable but less able to advance.

I plan on treating the religions as religions _and_ fanatical political ideologies. Essentially, belief systems that go above and beyond merely the system of government as represented by the civics table. Thus I will add some-term-for-stalin-type-state-worship and nazism after certain late game techs.

I think it's important to also add atheism, at least as a rough "none of the above" option. I also want to tie some benefits/handicaps to the various religions.

Note: I think the current neutral religion scheme is the best choice for the stock game.
As long as the editor makes it simple for me to do this, I'll be happy.

I believe one of the developer interviews metioned that each religion has its benefits, like the governments of civ3. Since the first civ to discover a religion in civ4 will "invent" it, perhaps the civ that discovers the religion should be able to determine what the religion does. For example, they could choose for Islam to be reduced corruption and cheaper temples (or whatever they will use as benefits for the religious system). Perhaps the controversy the developers wish to avoid by ascribing certain traits to a religion (and thus, possibly watering-down the benefits) can be avoided if the player is allowed to choose what their religion's traits will be.

I think this brings us back around to the idea of acquired or assigned traits for religions. Namely, if you found a religion, then you can obtain 2 traits which define it-either by choice or via your gameplay. Every X turns, the founder can change his/her traits, but at the cost of 1-turn of anarchy. Also, if another civ joins your religion, then they get the benefits/penalties of the traits the founder has assigned. The degree of bonus/penalty would depend on how Secular/Theocratic your civ is.
As an example, Germany discovers the Polytheism tech first-thus allowing them to Found Hinduism. The player looks through the available traits and decides on 'Fundamentalist' and 'Scholarly'. What this means is that Germany gets a bonus to resisting the attempts at conversion by other religions, but the downside is that any German city of a different religion gets a larger unhappiness penalty than normal (Fundamentalism). The other Trait-Scholarly-means that Germany gets a bonus to science, but at the penalty the downside is that religious improvements produce fewer happy faces than normal. Later, England is convinced to adopt Hinduism-this Civ gains the Fundamentalist and Scholarly benefit as well.
Anyway, just a thought.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

Would, could, should, blahblahblah...

I think this thread should be in the suggestions forum.

That's exactly what I was thinking, Aussie lurker. I don't wan't to see the developers make religion (which has been sorely lacking in other civ games) neutral just to avoid controversy

actually it had everything to do with the state aligned atheism, see you say that it would be possible to have made these advances in tech in a theocratic state with enugh resources, well think about this, how would one reconcile the vatican belief if the flatness of the earth(not any more, but they used to) with the ability to create large rockets to launch at the moon, using physics to figure out the fact that the rocket needs to fly around the earth (but wouldnt be able to do if it believed the world was flat) to be able to reach the moon?

Are you saying the vatican believed the world was flat when the first space rocket was launched?? Surely everyone used t